B.K.SRIVASTAVA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition relates to partition of land measuring 77K-19M comprising of 49/21(8-0), 207(1-15), 50//(2-16), 25 min (3- 10), 36//20 min (4-0), min (3-15), 22 min (2-13), 37//16/1 min (0-6), 45//2 min (4-11), 36//19/2 min (7-0), 22 min (2-14), 23 (5-2), 36//20 min (4-0), 21 min (3-17), 22 min (2-13), 37//16/1 min (3-11), 45//1/3 (5-8), 2 min (3-9), 3/1(4-6), 50//25 min (4-10), Khewat No. 221, Khatauni Nos. 322, 323, 324, 325 situated in village Ghal Khurd, Tehsil and District Ferozepur in which three brothers namely Joginder Singh, Mohan Singh and Kartar Singh were co-sharers of 1/3rd each.
(2.) THE present petitioner Kartar Singh had applied for the partition which was finalised and, vide the impugned order of Assistant Collector dated 18/10/04 Sanad Takseem was issued by rejecting application of the respondent, Joginder Singh to set aside the ex parte proceeding, which was taken against him. His plea is that he was resident of Rajasthan and was wrongly proceeded ex parte. Collector dismissed his appeal vide order dated 30/3/2005 and then he preferred revision before the Commissioner who granted a stay order on 25/4/05 which was further extended on 10/1/06. In the meanwhile, present petitioner, Kartar Singh approached this Court with the present revision petition saying that transfer of possession as per the partition order had been put in effect on 10/1/06 but on the same date the Commissioner extended the said stay order although it had become infructuous due to transfer of possession in terms of the partition order. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I deemed it fit to recall the case from the court of Commissioner, which has been received. The main contestants are Avtar Singh and Vir Singh who were the vendees of the present respondent No. 1, Joginder Singh who had preferred the aforesaid appeal and revision before the Commissioner. They are being represented through counsel, Sh. G.S. Nagra.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner who opposes the re-opening of the partition proceeding at the respondent's request has mainly emphasised following points :- (1) The respondent, Joginder Singh had approached civil Court for permanent injunction by hiding the pendency of partition proceeding. Permanent injunction was refused by the Court. He also did not disclose to the Collector/Commissioner that he had already approached the civil Court where he failed to get injunction. (2) As the transfer of possession had taken place vide the rapat roznmacha dated 10/1/06, the stay order extended by the Commissioner on the same date become infructuous. (3) The respondent, Joginder Singh had notice of the partition proceeding because his address as given in the said civil suit and the appeal before the Collector shows that he was represented through his son, Jagdish Singh, as General Power of Attorney and he was shown as resident of the village Ghall Khurd. ;